Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
This can be avoiding the issue or more commonly know as a diversion (tactic). Assuming this person is not a strict vegan, although not directly responsible for the death or abuse of sentient animals, the only rational responses are either something along the lines of providing justification or admitting no known justification. This would also be an appeal to false authority because people inside the industry are no more qualified to make philosophical or moral justifications than anyone else. While we are addressing fallacies, I should point out that the question itself "Why is it justified to kill and abuse SENTIENT animals?" most likely commits the complex question fallacy . I think very few people would suggest that abuse is justified, and would reject the claim that killing for food is abuse. |
answered on Monday, Feb 20, 2023 09:06:06 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|